Archdiocese of Manila: Guidelines on the Celebration of the Mass According to the Rite of the Roman Missal Published in 1962 (Tridentine Mass)

In accordance with the norms laid down by the Apostolic Letter, issued motu propio, of His Holiness, Pope Benedict XVI, Summorum Pontificum, We hereby establish the following guidelines and conditions on the celebration of the Mass according to the rite of the Roman Missal published in 1962 (Tridentine Mass) in the Archdiocese of Manila:

  1. The regulation of the celebration of this extraordinary form of the Mass belongs to the Archbishop of Manila, through the Minister of the Ministry for Liturgical Affairs of the Archdiocese of Manila.
  2. This form of Mass is to be celebrated only at the Christ the King Chapel of the Metropolitan Cathedral of Manila once a month, but not on Sundays and Solemnities.
  3. The presider at this form of celebration should be a priest duly appointed by the Archbishop of Manila.
  4. To ensure the solemnity and orderliness of the celebration of this form of Mass, the participation of other ministers (i.e., lectors, Master of Ceremonies, servers, choir, etc.) in the liturgy is to be determined and regulated by the Ministry for Liturgical Affairs of the Archdiocese of Manila.
  5. The celebration of the extraordinary form of the Mass in this Chapel is open to any individual or group in the Archdiocese of Manila who may have the desire to participate in such celebrations. Further requests from individuals or groups from the parishes of or who belong to the Archdiocese of Manila to celebrate this form of Mass is to be directed to join the monthly celebration at the Manila Cathedral.
  6. It is highly encouraged that a missal / booklet of the rite in Latin and English be prepared to help the faithful follow the celebration. It is like wise encouraged that those who will participate in this Mass undergo a catechetical orientation before the celebration.
  7. The Archbishop of Manila has jurisdiction over this celebration and, therefore, can decide to limit or discontinue this monthly celebration anytime he judges that this is not consonance with the whole pastoral direction of the Local Church.

Given in Manila, this 8th day of December 2008.

Archbishop of Manila



  1. A list of traditional latin masses in the Philippines is provided by Gerald at prodeoetpatria.  Check the sidebar.
  2. Read Fr. Zuhlsdorf’s comments per guideline in What Does the Prayer Really Say.
  3. Read the comment of Foederatio Internationalis Una Voce here.

Pope Paul VI’s Evangelii Nuntiandi: Basic Ecclesial Communities

58. The last Synod devoted considerable attention to these “small communities,” or communautes de base, because they are often talked about in the Church today. What are they, and why should they be the special beneficiaries of evangelization and at the same time evangelizers themselves?

According to the various statements heard in the Synod, such communities flourish more or less throughout the Church. They differ greatly among themselves both within the same region and even more so from one region to another.

In some regions they appear and develop, almost without exception, within the Church, having solidarity with her life, being nourished by her teaching and united with her pastors. In these cases, they spring from the need to live the Church’s life more intensely, or from the desire and quest for a more human dimension such as larger ecclesial communities can only offer with difficulty, especially in the big modern cities which lend themselves both to life in the mass and to anonymity. Such communities call quite simply be in their own way an extension on the spiritual and religious level- worship, deepening of faith, fraternal charity, prayer, contact with pastors-  of the small sociological community such as the village, etc. Or again their aim may be to bring together, for the purpose of listening to and meditating on the Word, for the sacraments and the bond of the agape, groups of people who are linked by age, culture, civil state or social situation: married couples, young people, professional people, etc.; people who already happen to be united in the struggle for justice, brotherly aid to the poor, human advancement. In still other cases they bring Christians together in places where the shortage of priests does not favor the normal life of a parish community. This is all presupposed within communities constituted by the Church, especially individual Churches and parishes.

In other regions, on the other hand, communautes de base come together in a spirit of bitter criticism of the Church, which they are quick to stigmatize as “institutional” and to which they set themselves Up in opposition as charismatic communities, free from structures and inspired only by the Gospel. Thus their obvious characteristic is an attitude of fault-finding and of rejection with regard to the Church’s outward manifestations: her hierarchy, her signs. They are radically opposed to the Church. By following these lines their main inspiration very quickly becomes ideological, and it rarely happens that they do not quickly fall victim to some political option or current of thought, and then to a system, even a party, with all the attendant risks of becoming its instrument.

The difference is already notable: the communities which by their spirit of opposition cut themselves off from the Church, and whose unity they wound, can well be called communautes de base, but in this case it is a strictly sociological name. They could not, without a misuse of terms, be called ecclesial communautes de base, even if while being hostile to the hierarchy, they claim to remain within the unity of the Church. This name belongs to the other groups, those which come together within the Church in order to unite themselves to the Church and to cause the Church to grow.

These latter communities will be a place of evangelization, for the benefit of the bigger communities, especially the individual Churches. And, as we said at the end of the last Synod, they will be a hope for the universal Church to the extent:

  • that they seek their nourishment in the Word of God and do not allow themselves to be ensnared by political polarization or fashionable ideologies, which are ready to exploit their immense human potential;
  • that they avoid the ever present temptation of systematic protest and a hypercritical attitude, under the pretext of authenticity and a spirit of collaboration;
  • that they remain firmly attached to the local Church in which they are inserted, and to the universal Church, thus avoiding the very real danger of becoming isolated within themselves, then of believing themselves to be the only authentic Church of Christ, and hence of condemning the other ecclesial communities;
  • that they maintain a sincere communion with the pastors whom the Lord gives to His Church, and with the magisterium which the Spirit of Christ has entrusted to these pastors;
  • that they never look on themselves as the sole beneficiaries or sole agents of evangelization- or even the only depositaries of the Gospel- but, being aware that the Church is much more vast and diversified, accept the fact that this Church becomes incarnate in other ways than through themselves;
  • that they constantly grow in missionary consciousness, fervor, commitment and zeal;
  • that they show themselves to be universal in all things and never sectarian.

On these conditions, which are certainly demanding but also uplifting, the ecclesial communautes de base will correspond to their most fundamental vocation: as hearers of the Gospel which is proclaimed to them and privileged beneficiaries of evangelization, they will soon become proclaimers of the Gospel themselves.
Source: Evangelii Nuntiandi: Apostolic Exhortation of His Holiness Pope Paul VI on Evangelization in the Modern World

Related Posts:

Catholic Bishops Conference of the Philippines: BECs lax on social issues; lacks sustainability

Vatican Lifts Excommunications on SSPX Bishops: Full Text

Decree of the Congregation for Bishops


By way of a letter of December 15, 2008 addressed to His Eminence Cardinal Dario Castrillón Hoyos, President of the Pontifical Commission Ecclesia Dei, Mons. Bernard Fellay, also in the name of the other three Bishops consecrated on June 30, 1988, requested anew the removal of the latae sententiae excommunication formally declared with the Decree of the Prefect of this Congregation on July 1, 1988. In the aforementioned letter, Mons. Fellay affirms, among other things: “We are always firmly determined in our will to remain Catholic and to place all our efforts at the service of the Church of Our Lord Jesus Christ, which is the Roman Catholic Church. We accept its teachings with filial disposition. We believe firmly in the Primacy of Peter and in its prerogatives, and for this the current situation makes us suffer so much.

His Holiness Benedict XVI – paternally sensitive to the spiritual unease manifested by the interested party due to the sanction of excommunication and trusting in the effort expressed by them in the aforementioned letter of not sparing any effort to deepen the necessary discussions with the Authority of the Holy See in the still open matters, so as to achieve shortly a full and satisfactory solution of the problem posed in the origin – decided to reconsider the canonical situation of Bishops Bernard Fellay, Bernard Tissier de Mallerais, Richard Williamson, and Alfonso de Galarreta, arisen with their episcopal consecration.

With this act, it is desired to consolidate the reciprocal relations of confidence and to intensify and grant stability to the relationship of the Fraternity of Saint Pius X with this Apostolic See. This gift of peace, at the end of the Christmas celebrations, is also intended to be a sign to promote unity in the charity of the universal Church and to try to vanquish the scandal of division.

It is hoped that this step be followed by the prompt accomplishment of full communion with the Church of the entire Fraternity of Saint Pius X, thus testifying true fidelity and true recognition of the Magisterium and of the authority of the Pope with the proof of visible unity.

Based on the faculties expressly granted to me by the Holy Father Benedict XVI, in virtue of the present Decree, I remit from Bishops Bernard Fellay, Bernard Tissier de Mallerais, Richard Williamson, and Alfonso de Galarreta the censure of latae sententiae excommunication declared by this Congregation on July 1, 1988, while I declare deprived of any juridical effect, from the present date, the Decree emanated at that time.

Rome, from the Congregation for Bishops, January 21, 2009.

Card. Giovanni Battista Re
Prefect of the Congregation for Bishops


This document was copied from Rorate Caeli, which for years has followed the relationship of SSPX and the Vatican.

Humani Generis of Pius XII Regarding Darwinian Evolution

The encylical Humani Generis of Pope Pius XII discussed the various errors propagated in ecclesiastical institutions by teachers using historical and natural (evolution) sciences in their exegesis.  I will extract his words regarding evolution and evolutionism:

Humani Generis on Evolution

5.  Some imprudently and indiscreetly hold that evolution, which has not been fully proved even in the domain of natural sciences, explains the origin of all things, and audaciously support the monistic and pantheistic opinion that the world is in continual evolution. Communists gladly subscribe to this opinion so that, when the souls of men have been deprived of every idea of a personal God, they may the more efficaciously defend and propagate their dialectical materialism.

6.  Such fictitious tenets of evolution which repudiate all that is absolute, firm and immutable, have paved the way for the new erroneous philosophy which, rivaling idealism, immanentism and pragmatism, has assumed the name of existentialism, since it concerns itself only with existence of individual things and neglects all consideration of their immutable essences.

36. For these reasons the Teaching Authority of the Church does not forbid that, in conformity with the present state of human sciences and sacred theology, research and discussions, on the part of men experienced in both fields, take place with regard to the doctrine of evolution, in as far as it inquires into the origin of the human body as coming from pre-existent and living matter – for the Catholic faith obliges us to hold that souls are immediately created by God. However, this must be done in such a way that the reasons for both opinions, that is, those favorable and those unfavorable to evolution, be weighed and judged with the necessary seriousness, moderation and measure, and provided that all are prepared to submit to the judgment of the Church, to whom Christ has given the mission of interpreting authentically the Sacred Scriptures and of defending the dogmas of faith.[11] Some however, rashly transgress this liberty of discussion, when they act as if the origin of the human body from pre-existing and living matter were already completely certain and proved by the facts which have been discovered up to now and by reasoning on those facts, and as if there were nothing in the sources of divine revelation which demands the greatest moderation and caution in this question.

37. When, however, there is question of another conjectural opinion, namely polygenism, the children of the Church by no means enjoy such liberty. For the faithful cannot embrace that opinion which maintains that either after Adam there existed on this earth true men who did not take their origin through natural generation from him as from the first parent of all, or that Adam represents a certain number of first parents. Now it is in no way apparent how such an opinion can be reconciled with that which the sources of revealed truth and the documents of the Teaching Authority of the Church propose with regard to original sin, which proceeds from a sin actually committed by an individual Adam and which, through generation, is passed on to all and is in everyone as his own.[12]

National Sanctity of Life Day is 18th January 2009 by Pres. George W. Bush

For Immediate Release
Office of the Press Secretary January 15, 2009

The White House, President George W. Bush National Sanctity of Human Life Day, 2009, A Proclamation by the President of the United States of America:

National Sanctity of Life Day

All human life is a gift from our Creator that is sacred, unique, and worthy of protection. On National Sanctity of Human Life Day, our country recognizes that each person, including every person waiting to be born, has a special place and purpose in this world. We also underscore our dedication to heeding this message of conscience by speaking up for the weak and voiceless among us.

The most basic duty of government is to protect the life of the innocent. My Administration has been committed to building a culture of life by vigorously promoting adoption and parental notification laws, opposing Federal funding for abortions overseas, encouraging teen abstinence, and funding crisis pregnancy programs. In 2002, I was honored to sign into law the Born-Alive Infants Protection Act, which extends legal protection to children who survive an abortion attempt. I signed legislation in 2003 to ban the cruel practice of partial-birth abortion, and that law represents our commitment to building a culture of life in America. Also, I was proud to sign the Unborn Victims of Violence Act of 2004, which allows authorities to charge a person who causes death or injury to a child in the womb with a separate offense in addition to any charges relating to the mother.

America is a caring Nation, and our values should guide us as we harness the gifts of science. In our zeal for new treatments and cures, we must never abandon our fundamental morals. We can achieve the great breakthroughs we all seek with reverence for the gift of life.

The sanctity of life is written in the hearts of all men and women. On this day and throughout the year, we aspire to build a society in which every child is welcome in life and protected in law. We also encourage more of our fellow Americans to join our just and noble cause. History tells us that with a cause rooted in our deepest principles and appealing to the best instincts of our citizens, we will prevail.

NOW, THEREFORE, I, GEORGE W. BUSH, President of the United States of America, by virtue of the authority vested in me by the Constitution and laws of the United States, do hereby proclaim January 18, 2009, as National Sanctity of Human Life Day. I call upon all Americans to recognize this day with appropriate ceremonies and to underscore our commitment to respecting and protecting the life and dignity of every human being.

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand this fifteenth day of January, in the year of our Lord two thousand nine, and of the Independence of the United States of America the two hundred and thirty-third.


A hobbit thanks to Karen Hall’s Some Have Hats.

Apostolic Visitation to U.S. Seminaries: the Problem Areas

The final report of the Apostolic Visitation of U.S. seminaries was dated 15 December 2008.  The report presented the good and bad views of the seminaries.  I will summarize the the problem areas here, so that they will provide a simple checklist for evaluating seminaries, especially here in the Philippines.


A.  Concept of the Priesthood

  1. The students have an idea of priestly service, but teachings such as on the character impressed by the Sacred Orders, on the nature of sacra potestas, on the tria munera, etc., are not so well known.
  2. The mixing of seminarians and laity in theological classes leads to the blurring of the distinction between the common priesthood (of the laity) and the ministerial, hierarchical priesthood.
  3. The priestly formation must be devoted to the priesthood itself and not to priesthood being de facto part of religious life.
  4. Some thinks that to limit the priestly ministry to men is discriminatory.

B.  The Government of the Seminary

  1. Rectors must not only be exemplary priests (or religious); they must also be leaders capable of making difficult decisions.
  2. Some rectors are frequently absent in their seminaries.
  3. Formation faculty must be priests; though the teaching faculty can include religious and lay people, the majority of the teachers must be priests.
  4. Frequent changes in the faculty are bad for the formation of students.
  5. Seminary formation suffers due to faculty members having duties inside and outside the seminary.
  6. Many centers run by the religious have a culture of widespread dissent.
  7. There are some faculty members who, although not speaking openly against church teaching, let the students understand through hints, off-the-cuff remarks, etc., their disapproval of some articles of magisterial teaching.
  8. In problems involving doctrinal teaching, the procedures for removing a faculty are not invoked as often as they should be.
  9. The laity must not study in the seminary.
  10. Let the USCCB decide whether there are too many or too few seminaries.

C.  Criteria for Admission of Candidates

  1. There must be a propedeutic period for diocesan candidates.
  2. Prior to and following their pre-notiviate and notiviate, the seminarians must be evaluated to determine their suitability.
  3. The Rule of Life of the College Seminary and pre-theology course should be more, not less, exacting than that of the theologate.  Unsuitable students must be dismissed.
  4. There must be a minimum of 6 years of formation to determine the irregularities in the behaviors of the candidates.
  5. The bishop, not the vocation directors, should call the cadidate to orders.
  6. Seminaries should have their own screening procedures and not rely on the ones provided by the diocese.
  7. Individual candidates from sponsoring dioceses must be well documented.
  8. Students studying in the same seminary–diocesan or religious–must be governed by the same rules for accepting and rejecting students.
  9. It is not clear who has the right to see the results of psychological testing of candidates.
  10. Seminary rectors must always keep the barriers to ordination high: they should reject unsuitable candidates and should not shorten the formation time.

D.  The Seminarians

  1. Some candidates come from broken families or with little knowledge of Catholic doctrine.
  2. Seminaries with candidates coming from different cultures must incorporate various cultural expectations.
  3. There are still some places–usually centers of formation for religious–where ambiguity vis-a-vis homosexuality persists.
  4. The lack of oversight regarding what students do off-campus invites trouble.

E.  Human Formation

  1. Formation advisers must not intrude into spiritual direction, i.e., they must not ask about matters of sin.
  2. The Rule of Life in the seminary must be more demanding, so that the seminarians would take on a more priestly and ascetic character and shed a wordly style of life, e.g.,  alcohol use, curfews, absences, off-limit areas to guests, etc.
  3. Restrict internet use to public places; internet-filtering programs must be used.
  4. Since the rule of life for older candidates is diminished, the superiors must closely watch if these candidates have interiorized  the strict rules in his previous years.
  5. During summer breaks, if a student does not comport himself as if he were in the seminary, then his formation has not interiorized his formation.  Plans must be drawn for the students during breaks so that their formation is not interrupted for several months.

F.  Spiritual Formation

  1. Liturgies celebrated at religious centers of formation do not obey liturgical norms.
  2. There are no fixed periods of time for prayer.
  3. Seminaries must educate students on the classical forms and Catholic spirituality.
  4. All seminaries must organize community masses in the seminary every day even on Sundays; lauds and vespers must also be celebrated daily.
  5. Seminarians must go to confession at least once every two weeks.
  6. Seminaries must include recitation of the rosary, novenas, litanies, Stations of the Cross, and so on.
  7. Some institutes even have an atmosphere that discourages traditional acts of catholic piety, which begs the question whether the faculty’s ideas are constant with catholic teaching and tradition.
  8. Some sins are revealed even in the public forum; other seminaries prepare lists of exceptions to the inviolability of the seal of the confessional.
  9. It is difficult to ascertain, in the external forum, whether each individual seminarian is interiorizing his formation.
  10. Some faculty members question the link of celibacy to priesthood.

G.  Intellectual Formation

  1. Many teachers in the seminary do not have proper qualifications from an institute recognized by the Holy See.
  2. Because of teacher scarcity, some teachers teach beyond their expertise and do not have enough time to keep up to date in their disciplines.
  3. Some essential courses are omitted or telescoped.
  4. It is highly unlikely that seminarians studying in community colleges would receive Catholic philosophy education that is useful for theology and whose teachers are Catholics with eccelesiastical degrees.
  5. Mariology and Patristics are not taught.
  6. Students have weak grounding in Latin, which should have been useful for the Liturgy and for consulting primary theological sources.
  7. In seminaries run by the religious dissent is widespread, such as on the fields of moral theology, the ordination of men alone, and bioethical and medical questions.
  8. Theology and spirituality cannot be divorced; teachers should not shy away from spiritual and pastoral questions should they arise in class.
  9. Programs of pastoral formation should be under the direction of a priest, such as those on the administration of the sacraments; religious and lay people can only assist in the planning and organization.
  10. Seminarians must not be sent to pastoral experiences that are incompatible with Catholic pastoral practice.

H.  Promotion to Holy Orders

  1. Seminarians are only evaluated only on their fourth year theology and not before it.
  2. Non-ordained and non-Catholic faculty members should not vote on the ordination of a seminarian.
  3. Evaluations of seminarians must not be arbitrary; those who are denied promotion must be given an explanation by the superiors.
  4. Impediments and irregularities to order must be checked before the formation, in order to avoid problems later.
  5. If there is doubt on the worthiness of a seminarian to be ordained, do not ordain him.

I.  Service of the Seminary to the Newly Ordained

  1. Seminaries must provide ongoing formation for the newly ordained; this is difficult if the newly ordained priests are spread out over a large geoegraphical area.


Congregatio de Institutione de Catholica (de Seminariis et atque Studiorum Institutis)

Fr. Horacio de la Costa, S.J.: The Priests Who Brought Christianity to the Philippines Belonged to the Church of the Counter-Reformation

The lowland peoples of the Philippines were converted to Roman Catholic Christianity by priests and brothers of the missionary religious orders which had establishments in Spain in the sixteenth and seventeenth centuries.  They were, in the order of their first arrival in the islands, the Augustinians (1565), the Franciscans (1578), the Jesuits (1581), the Dominicans (1587), and the Augustinian Recollects (1606).

Very few secular priests came to the Philippines during the period of Spanish rule.  Those that did serve mostly as cathedral clergy in Manila and Cebu.

In the beginning, the Philippine missonaries were almost all Spaniards born in Spain itself (peninsulares).  In the course o the Seventeenth Century they were joined by Spaniard[s] born in the colonies (criollos), andlater still by other Europeans, mostly from the Hapsburg dominions.  However, penisular Spaniards constituted the preponderant majority of the Philippine clergy until the very end of Spanish rule.

Thus, the priest who brought Christianity to the Philippines were men who belonged, spiritually, to the church of the Counter-Reformation, intellectually, to the Age of the Baroque.

They were men of the Counter-Reformation Church, the Church that was closing ranks against the novatores, the innovating Protestants of the northern European countries who were challenging the traditional beliefs of Catholics.  They were deeply concerned about preserving the ”purity of faith,” by which they meant scripture and tradition as interpreted by medieval scholastics, of whom Saint Thomas Aquinas was prince; the faith as most recently defined by the Council of Trent, and as authoritatively regulated and enforced by the Holy See and the Spanish Inquisition. This was the faith that they meant to preserve intact, and to transmit to those who did not yet have it.

This faith was not only the truth, but the whole truth regarding man’s condition and his ordination to God his Creator.  All men are to be persuaded to accept this truth in its totality.  If they cannot be persuaded, they they must be compelled—the ”compelle intrare” of the gospel—for otherwise they cannot be saved.  Extra ecclesiam nulla salus—there is no salvation outside the church.

This may serve to explain the extreme caution—one might almost say the intransigence—with which the Spanish missionaries who founded our Philippine Christinaity regarded any departure from the religous practices they were used to.  Nil innoventur nisi quod traditum est—let there be no innovations, except those handed down by tradition.  We may consider this an impracticable, even an inconsisten principle.  We must nevertheless try to understand, and to symphatize with it as a principle sincerely held.

The adaptation of Christianity to anon-European culture was not antecedently and entirely excluded.  But it was a very limited form of adaptation, whose object seemed to be simply to make Christian belief and practice more palatable to the people being evangelized.  There was no real attempt to learn from the alien culture; to seek elements in it which might possibly enrich Christian belief or make Christian worship more meaningful.  This was not possible to men of the Counter-Reformation.  How could it be?  Their reaction to the Protestant revolt was to defend the Roman Catholic tradition in its entirety; to preserve it intact and to transmit it intact, because it was the whole truth about man and God.  Any departure from it by a Christian was simply heresy, and whatever pagans believed in was simply error, the vain imaginings of people who ”sit in darkness and the shadow of death.”


Horacio de la Costa, “The priest in the Philippine life and society: an historical view,” in Church and Sacraments, ed. by Ma. Victoria B. Parco, (Department of Theology, Ateneo de Manila University), pp.  192-200.  The posted excerpt is pp. 192-193.  The original article is from Loyola Papers no. 12 (Manila: Ateneo, CBI, 1980), pp. 4-15.

About the Author:

Reverend Father Horacio de la Costa, S.J. (1916-1970) was the first Filipino Provincial General of the Society of Jesus in the Philippines, and a recognized authority in Philippine and Asian culture and history. (Wikipedia)

The Ateneo de Manila Website has his picture, early writings, and biography).

Health Minister Juan Flavier: How to Distribute Contraceptives in the Philippines Using CARE and NGO’s

At the U.N. ICDP in Cairo held in September 1994, Juan Flavier outlined his efforts to spread contraceptives in all Philippine villages (c.f. Juan Flavier, Viede-Privilege Talk, NGO Forum, Cairo, September, 1994):

I found out that I was very vulnerable because I was in government.  All the senators and all the congressmen in one snap of the finger can cut my budget and I am nowhere to be found.  So what did I do?  Something that you must realize—the power of the NGO.  I decided that I’ll do it through the NGOs and that’s exactly what I did, up to today.

Why? Because when I do it they shoot me, but when you do it then can’t talk.  They can’t abolish you.  Not only that: You are the electorate, at least you pretend to be the electorate….  Let us do it systematically.  I said there are five areas we’re gonna get the NGOs to do: advocacy, information, education and communication (IEC), supplies, i.e., contraceptives; and [manage] clinics.  And what I did was get NGOs for each one of them—and by underground!

Are there spies around here?  You’re all my friends, ha?  This is an open secret, that is why they are so sore…. all this was happening quietly.  Once it was installed, there was no way it could be removed.  And what we did was—we got a lead agency NGO for each (activity).

I found out [how] to distribute contraceptive supplies in an island structure like the Philippines….  I found out that CARE, (you know the property of American you meet everywhere?) they are the world’s expert in distributing food all over.  They know the system.  They have been doing it for 45 years.  So I said: ‘That’s the group!  They’re gonna bring together with the food, condoms, pills and IUDs.’

It worked!  We had a contract with them….  You have to know how to play the game….  And they cannot drive CARE away because there is [previous] agreement between government and CARE to be there and they’re there!  And they just add on the boxes and the boxes are distributed all over the Philippines.  So when they [the people] complain about the IUD, and condoms and pills all over, including villages, it is because of that one—CARE!  Now I could also honestly say that I am not spending money of the government for the supplies.  Yet, once the demand is there, then we can begin to shift.

Its the same with IEC—I got a group!  It’s an NGO from John Hopkins University Center for Communication.  Why them?  Because I graduated from that school.  It’s a good school.  Why do I say the’re good—they know their business.  And what happens when there is a need for IEC—I don’t do it—[John Hopkins University] group does it for the government.  Anybody who wants materials, you just go to them.  You don’t even have to pass through the government you know, that’s the beauty—you don’t even have to deal with [government] red tape.

Source:Jean Guilfoyle, ”The Story of Health Minister Flavier,” Population Research Institute Magazine, November-December 1994 Issue). Quoted in Conspiracy Against Life: Evangelium Vitae’s Conclusive Evidence (Two Hearts Media Organization, 1996), pp. 92-93.

Instruction Dignitas Personae on Certain Bioethical Questions: Allowed and Not Allowed

The Instruction Dignitas Personae on certain bioethical questions was released by the Congregation for Doctrine and Faith last 8 September 2008, Feast of the Nativity of the Blessed Virgin Mary.  The full document is here.  The body of the document consists of 37 articles, each article consisting of a paragraph or two.  So I’ll enumerate the important points:

Part II: Fertility Treatments

With regard to the treatment of infertility, new medical techniques must respect three fundamental goods: a) the right to life and to physical integrity of every human being from conception to natural death; b) the unity of marriage, which means reciprocal respect for the right within marriage to become a father or mother only together with the other spouse; c) the specifically human values of sexuality which require “that the procreation of a human person be brought about as the fruit of the conjugal act specific to the love between spouses.”


  1. Hormonal treatments for infertility, surgery for endometriosis, unblocking of fallopian tubes or their surgical repair only remove obstacles to natural fertilization
  2. Adoption
  3. Research on prevention of sterility

Not Allowed:

  1. Heterologous and homologous artificial insemination that substitute for the conjugal act.
  2. In vitro fertilization because too many embryos are destroyed
  3. Intracytoplasmic sperm injection in which a single sperm is injected directly into an eqq because it separates procreation from the conjugal act.
  4. Cyropreservation of embryos because they presuppose in vitro fertilization that separates procreation from the conjugal act.
  5. Use of frozen embryos for research or treatment of diseases because they are not mere biological material nor cadavers.
  6. Surrogate motherhood or prenatal adoption for frozen embryos.
  7. Cryopreservation of oocytes for the purpose of artificial insemination
  8. Multiple embro transfer in a single womb which leads to systematic destruction of fetuses so that only one baby is born
  9. Preimplantation diagnosis–made already illicit because of its connection to artificial fertilization–is not allowed because it is a form of eugenics that prevents the birth of children with abnormalities; this mentality leads to infanticide and euthanasia, and all other forms of discrimination against the sick and the disabled and those of different race.
  10. Contragestatives which aborts the embryo that was implanted on the womb; these medicines are taken two weeks after nonoccurrence of menstruation–sign of pregnancy.
  11. Deliberate and direct killing of human beings from conception to birth: interception and contragestation fall within the sin of abortion.

Part III: Manipulation of Embryo or Human Genetic Patrimony


  1. Adult stem cell research.  The methods of obtaining them must not cause serious harm to their subject from whom the stem cells are taken.  The following sources are allowed: a) an adult organism; b) the blood of the umbilical cord at the time of birth; c) fetuses who have died of natural causes.
  2. Somatic cell gene therapy that  seeks to eliminate or reduce genetic defects on the level of somatic cells, that is, cells other than the reproductive cells, but which make up the tissue and organs of the body. It involves procedures aimed at certain individual cells with effects that are limited to a single person.  The informed consent of the patient or his legislated representative is required.
  3. Use of a vaccine by parents which was developed using cell lines of illicit origin, if there is a danger to the health of children; but it must be kept in mind that everyone has the duty to make known their disagreement and to ask that their healthcare system make other types of vaccines available.

Not Allowed:

  1. Embryonic stem cell research.
  2. Germ line cell therapy that modifies the genes; the modifications are transmitted to the children.
  3. Genetic engineering for strengthening the gene pool.  This leads to discrimination of other persons.    This is based on the ideology that man can replace the Creator.
  4. Human cloning in which a copy of a person is made.  This  gives rise to a new human being without a connection to the act of reciprocal self-giving between the spouses and, more radically, without any link to sexuality.  This is a form of biological slavery.
  5. Therapeutic cloning for treatment of diseases.  It is gravely immoral to sacrifice a human life for therapeutic ends.
  6. Hybrid cloning which mixes human and animal genes.
  7. Experimentation on human embryos.
  8. Mutilation or autopsies of dead embryos; these embryos must be respected as remains of other human beings.
  9. Use of biological material from illicit sources, even if the sources are independent from the researchers.